Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Paul Borrill: on 8/7/13 at 18:58pm UTC, wrote Dear Carolyn, I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest...

Manuel Morales: on 8/7/13 at 18:54pm UTC, wrote Carolyn, Since it appears you have little time to respond to the postings...

Jacek Safuta: on 8/7/13 at 16:57pm UTC, wrote Dear Carolyn, Fortunately within so many essays I have finally found also...

Cristinel Stoica: on 8/7/13 at 7:39am UTC, wrote Hi, votes are vanishing again.

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 8/5/13 at 23:33pm UTC, wrote Dear Carolyn, We are at the end of this essay contest. In conclusion, at...

Manuel Morales: on 8/3/13 at 4:40am UTC, wrote Carolyn, I found your your approach to the topic at hand fascinating and...

Hugh Matlock: on 7/29/13 at 9:33am UTC, wrote Hi Carolyn, Thank you, yours is a delightful essay that puts forward a...

eAmazigh HANNOU: on 7/29/13 at 3:29am UTC, wrote Dear Carolyn, One single principle leads the Universe. Every thing, every...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "What is happening in material reality provides the connection to inertia...." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Georgina Woodward: ""We saw early on that as conformed by countless experiment, there is no..." in Bonus Koan: Distant...

Ian Durham: ""Loony" Max Tegmark is the director of the organization that runs this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Lorraine Ford: "Ian, I’m sorry for going overboard on the “physicists think that”..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

andrea gonzalez: "Interesting stuff to read. Keep it up. If want to collect free gift card..." in Memory, Causality and...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Dr. Kuhn, Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this..." in First Things First: The...

Poker Online: "https://www.jakartapoker.net/" in Downward causation:...

Enquire us: "Your Ro system desires regular maintenance to confirm it’s continually in..." in Agency in the Physical...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi FORUM
August 25, 2019

CATEGORY: It From Bit or Bit From It? Essay Contest (2013) [back]
TOPIC: IT from BIT considering fluctuations in a quantised space by Carolyn Devereux [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Carolyn Devereux wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 16:30 GMT
Essay Abstract

In the spirit of John Wheeler this essay explores an alternative view of the geometry of space and how it could relate to matter. A time “BIT” emerges which is fundamental to the geometry creating a physical universe. In doing so a quantised space-time can be related to gravity.

Author Bio

Dr Carolyn Devereux received a BSc (Hons) in Physics at Birmingham University, UK and a PhD at University College London.

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Angel Garcés Doz wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:06 GMT
Very good esay: space-time-matter are the same

Quantum geometrization, discrete, of one same entity unified

In te compactifications of tiny circles is the key to quantize the gravity and unified the space-time-mass/energy. In(2)= dark energy density

1-In(2)-Omega(b) = dark matter density

Omega(b)= dark baryon density =

= 240 ( group E8 )- exp(5+(In2)^2)

Curvature =1/r^2

Infinity of oscilators ( circles ) with 3 circles mutually tangents,

these 3 circles interact at tangent points ; and create other circle, the four

Sum(n = 1, infinity) 3/n^2 = Pi^2/2

Time Planck= tp

Tp•la•exp(exp(Pi^2/2))= H0 ( Huble Constant

la = SQR(alfa^-1/(4•Pi)). ; alfa^-1 = inverse fine structure constan= 137.035999073

Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:44 GMT
Angel

Thank you for your comments. I will need to read your essay before I can comment on your points further.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



James Lee Hoover wrote on Jul. 5, 2013 @ 21:19 GMT
Carolyn,

If given the time and the wits to evaluate over 120 more entries, I have a month to try. My seemingly whimsical title, “It’s good to be the king,” is serious about our subject.

Jim

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 11:45 GMT
Carolyn,

As of 7-6-13, 7:45 am EST, the rating function for your essay is not available. Sorry I can't help you out right now by rating your essay. NOTE: I have logged in using a PC and a MAC and different browsers but it appears to be a site function issue.

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Manuel S Morales replied on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 21:15 GMT
Carolyn,

I have sent an email requesting that FQXi extend to those of you who had their essay posted on July 5, 2013, be allowed additional days to compensate for the days of not being able to rate these essays.

My experience in conducting the online Tempt Destiny (TD) experiment from 2000 to 2012 gave me an understanding of the complexities involved in administrating an online competition which assures me that the competition will be back up and running soon. Ironically, the inability of not being able to rate the essays correlates with the TD experimental findings, as presented in my essay, which show how the acts of selection are fundamental to our physical existence.

Anyway, I hope that all entrants will be allocated the same opportunity to have their essay rated when they are posted, and if not possible due to technical difficulties, will have their opportunity adjusted accordingly. Best wishes to you with your entry.

Manuel

PS I will be reviewing and rating your entry after this function has been turned back on.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hon Jia Koh wrote on Jul. 6, 2013 @ 14:18 GMT
Hi Carolyn,

This is an elegant and beautiful essay. I hope you also find resonance and synergy in my essay (and thread) which is raw, lacks scientific rigor and looks absurd.

I am still grappling with point 3 of your essay on A BIT of time. I tend to treat time as a derivative or consequence of the change in state of event. In my thread, I discussed abit more on the treatment of space and time, of local and global state which I am still ploughing on.

Great work and good luck!

Cheers,

Hon Jia

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 08:22 GMT
Hon Jia

Thank you for your comments. I also think of time as a change of state. If there were no changes there would be no universe and no time. In my model the change of state is the movement of the space quantum and hence time emerges from the model.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 7, 2013 @ 02:07 GMT
Dear Carolyn

Your argument is very interesting and practical.I appreciate your essay will be graded and the rating system continues to operate.

And to change the atmosphere "abstract" of the competition along with demonstrate for the real preeminent possibility of the Absolute theory as well as to clarify the issues I mentioned in the essay and to avoid duplicate questions after...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:35 GMT
Hoang cao Hai

Both the absolute and the relative can exist, in that for something to exist it must be absolute, it exists in that piece of space at that time. However everything exists relative to each other. Our whole way of measuring and perceiving the world is based on comparing one thing with another, in space and time. And space and time changes depending on our frame of reference, so relative existence is fundamental to our perception of the world.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 00:28 GMT
Dear Dr. Carolyne

I read with great interest your short lucid essay full of fresh new ideas. Everything you said is eminently reasonable and full of promise to break the current conceptual logjam in physics. A realist Machian universe buzzing with causal activity on its smallest scale is the very thing needed.

However I think one should go much further. Modern physics is - in a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 11:09 GMT
Vladimir

Thank you for your comments. I agree that the point particle/photon is an issue for current physics and although it is a useful concept it is also a limiting one and we are reaching it's limit.

A flexible space-time creating gravity is one of the basis of my essay. I don't see it as complicated , in fact I see it as a simple solution which follows Occam's Razor.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Manuel S Morales wrote on Jul. 8, 2013 @ 20:42 GMT
Carolyn,

I have had the pleasure of reading your essay and I find your reasoning to be reflective of the findings obtained from a 12 year experiment I have recently concluded. I have a question to run by you if I may.

You stated, "Energy in the Universe is always seen as movement; when there is no movement it is at absolute zero, i.e. nothing. So by imagining a moving piece of nothing we have created space and energy."

How does a piece of nothing exist as a piece?

Thanks,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 08:09 GMT
Manuel

Thank you for reading my essay. The purpose of the piece of nothing was to imagine how something could come from nothing. It is a model. My aim was to get a discrete unit of space that contains energy. The result I ended up with was a unit of space that exists because it contains energy and is vibrating. If there is no energy then there is no space, there is nothing. I like this view of space and energy being dependent on each other for their own existence. It could also mean that the space-time continuum becomes a space-time-energy continuum.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Michel Planat wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 09:07 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

You seem to be the first to resurrect Wheeler's view of geons within the contest an you do it with elegance. You don't mention any connection of your views to loop quantum gravity (Smolin, Hartle), I agree that no easy mention of bit can be defined in LCG.

Reciprocally, one can find much geometrical and algebraic structure in the qubit observable space, as I attempt to explain in my essay, but I have no idea how space-time concepts could be introduced. GR and QM still stay apart from each other.

All the best,

Michel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:20 GMT
Michel

When I first came across the geon I was interested in matter being made up of trapped light. Although the geon is a defunct idea, the concept of gravity creating a trap at an elementary particle level rather than at a cosmic level is an interesting one (and created public interest in miniature black holes developing when the large hadron collider was turned on).

I have thought about the link between loop quantum gravity and the vibrating quantum model and whether they could be the same thing. My model may be a different way of visualising the loop and the way in which it contains energy. The loop wavefunction would then be the size and shape and energy of the space quantum. Maybe some of the mathematics from LQG could be used.

Thank you for your interest in my essay

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Antony Ryan wrote on Jul. 9, 2013 @ 13:40 GMT
Dear Dr Devereux,

Very nice essay to read and super approach! Think this sums it up nicely to me:

"The quantum of time becomes the BIT that enables information to flow across the space network".

After all Einstein worked with 4D space-time so it makes perfect sense to intertwine information and reality in this elegant way too.

I've split space away from time, not disagreeing with Albert at all, but showing that there may be an arrow of time displayed when "crossing" black holes. So I hope you take a look at my essay too!

For now congratulations and nice to see a Birmingham Alumni on here - nearly went myself ;)

Best wishes,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:42 GMT
Antony

Thank you for your comments. The arrow of time is an important and unresolved problem. I will read your essay.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share


Antony Ryan replied on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 15:28 GMT
No panic! I've still 35 to read! ;o/

Cheers,

Antony

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anton Biermans wrote on Jul. 10, 2013 @ 03:05 GMT
Hi Carolyn,

Wheelers question ''How does something arise from nothing? '' seems to express amazement that something exists indeed. However, if the most fundamental, most obvious law of all of physics is the conservation law which says that what comes out of nothing must add to nothing, then there doesn't exist anything at all. Indeed, if in a universe which creates itself out of nothing,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 09:54 GMT
Anton

The question regarding something from nothing I interpret more as the fact that we have to start with something for the universe to exist. In my essay I use the something from nothing as a way of explaining the model. My assumption is that energy and space must exist. If the universe was nothing we would not be here discussing it.

Regarding information and interactions I agree that a single charged particle will have no electrical force on it, since a force would require a second electrical charge, however it can still have a charge on it. Information about the charge of the particle can only be known if an exchange or interaction with another charged particle occurs. Hence information is about changes in states.

Regarding your comment on space quantisation, I do not understand why this has to be from an imaginary observer outside the universe. If quantisation of space is how the universe is, then that is how it is from an observer inside the universe as well as from the outside of the universe.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 11, 2013 @ 16:45 GMT
Carolyn,

A nice classical essay on a quantum subject. I liked your businesslike no frills approach, axiomised layout, and indeed the thesis itself.

I did have a feeling of deja vu when I got to "Much ado about nothing", which proposed something very close to your premise in my last years essay also entitled "Much ado about nothing" (7th in the community scoring).

I went on to find something a bit more fundamental which I hope you may consider and comment on;

If a small cloud of quanta was on motion past a large cloud of quanta, and light propagated at c through each with respect to each rest frame, would that not derive SR direct from a quantum mechanism?

The 'boundary mechanism' would require light to 'arrive' at c in one frame, then slow or speed up (Doppler shifting) to propagate at the 'new' c. In fact atomic scattering is always at the ion particle's c, so the mechanism exists.

And even perhaps where; "Einstein showed that gravity was geometry" and, "Wheeler asserted that matter could also be geometry", then the mechanism of diffraction by small quanta or particles of matter could not only replicate but even perhaps 'be' curved space-time. No violation of SR is involved as there is no 'absolute' background frame.

As something of a test, my this years essay explores some implications relating to a 3D version of wave propagation, appearing to resolve the EPR paradox. Your views would be valued.

But congratulations on your own proposal and essay this year. I hope it does very well.

Best regards

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:09 GMT
Peter

Apologies if I used the same title, this is my first year in the contest and I did not read last year's essays.

A cloud of quanta is space quanta with energy then two "clouds" of different energy patterns meeting would require the space quanta to match at the boundary. Light can travel at c between and within the clouds since it travels at c within each quantum regardless of it's shape/energy. Then this does derive SR. And as you say there is no absolute background frame. Particles of matter would be curved space, in fact all forces, fields, matter and light would come from curved space.

Thank you for your interest in my essay and I will read and rate your essay.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Héctor Daniel Gianni wrote on Jul. 13, 2013 @ 20:30 GMT
Dear Carolyn Devereux:

I am an old physician that does not know nothing of mathematics and almost nothing of physics. Why I am writing you?, because I think I can help in some ways in “space-time” with the experimental meaning of “time” I send you a summary so you can decide in reading or not...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Joe Fisher wrote on Jul. 15, 2013 @ 15:41 GMT
Dr. Devereux,

I have rated your superb essay a ten. I only have one quibble I wish to make about it. I too am an old realist who does not understand anything about the science of physics. You elegantly wrote: “This assumes that we have a unique place in the Universe and that without us the Universe does not exist – an idealist viewpoint. The alternative view is that substances can exist without human intervention – the realist.” And you daringly ‘fessed up to being a realist.

In my essay BITTERS, I have carefully explained to all who read it, that one unique real Universe can only be occurring, once.

I think Wheeler ought to have asked these questions:

Is the real Universe simple? Yes.

Is the abstract universe simple? No.

Is unique, once simple? Yes.

Is Quantum theory simple? No.

I do wish you well in the contest.

Joe

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:29 GMT
Joe

Thank you for your comments. I will read your essay so that I can give a more considered response to your comments.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 17, 2013 @ 19:21 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

I read your abstract and since the theme was similar to mine, I went further and browsed your essay. It deserves a deeper comment after more than a casual read. In the meantime, since a PhD is not a joke, and

as the contest in Wheeler's honor draws to a close, leaving for the moment considerations of rating and prize money, and knowing we cannot all agree on whether 'it' comes from 'bit' or otherwise or even what 'it' and 'bit' mean, and as we may not be able to read all essays, though we should try, I pose the following 4 simple questions and will rate you accordingly before July 31 when I will be revisiting your blog.

"If you wake up one morning and dip your hand in your pocket and 'detect' a million dollars, then on your way back from work, you dip your hand again and find that there is nothing there…

1) Have you 'elicited' an information in the latter case?

2) If you did not 'participate' by putting your 'detector' hand in your pocket, can you 'elicit' information?

3) If the information is provided by the presence of the crisp notes ('its') you found in your pocket, can the absence of the notes, being an 'immaterial source' convey information?

Finally, leaving for the moment what the terms mean and whether or not they can be discretely expressed in the way spin information is discretely expressed, e.g. by electrons

4) Can the existence/non-existence of an 'it' be a binary choice, representable by 0 and 1?"

Answers can be in binary form for brevity, i.e. YES = 1, NO = 0, e.g. 0-1-0-1.

Best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:33 GMT
Akinbo

1 0 1 1

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share


Akinbo Ojo replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 11:42 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

I am so happy you were not offended by my 4 questions. I managed to annoy some by that post.

I am rating your essay high not because of your answers but the quality of your essay.

Best regards,

Akinbo

*Most PhDs are saying 1011 so that should be the correct answer.

The implication is that most likely in our list of binary choices underlying our information theoretic physics, existence/non-existence would lie at the "very, very deep bottom" in that list. I would value a few comments from a PhD on my essay, even if you cant rate high not being written in the kind of language you may prefer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 18, 2013 @ 17:03 GMT
Carolyn,

you are my champion! I read your beautiful essay 2 days ago and had to take a break from fqxi forum, so stunned I was. I had found the match I was looking for. As I already explained on Maria Carrillo-Ruiz's blog, as a non-professional I am here to hone my vision of the world and my understanding of its inner workings. My method consists of visualization of the 'underlying reality' based on logic and working in complete isolation -- and then looking for a match for my vision among the writings of professionals like yourself. This is how I choose among the countless schemes of reality offered by physics today. I was stunned to have found the exact match in your essay.

I tried to convey what I envisioned in my last year FQXi contest essay on the nature of space, but... As a non-professional, I could not do it full justice. Also, due to space limitations I did not go into the details of how 'matter' may emerge from harmonic oscillations within the vibrating primordial substrate, but concentrated instead on the top-down view of the universe emerging from the dynamic, vibrating, structure of space governed by just a few simple principles.

Having read your essay, I was transported back to those couple of weeks in May of 2011 when I 'saw' it all -- and the ecstasy that came with it. I had glimpsed the essence of the universe! (Do you get those too?) Without a doubt, for me those days were the highlight of the past decade.

I am well aware that everyone can get lucky and chance upon a valuable realization, but it takes many years, sometimes decades, of formal study to convey this realization in a coherent and cohesive manner. And you did just that. Thank you!

-Marina

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:52 GMT
Marina

Thank you for such lovely comments. My aim in entering this contest was to test out the ideas within the physics community and I'm glad that they are being well received.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



WANG Xiong wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 08:33 GMT
Hi Carolyn,

Thanks for your nice essay, well done

I enjoy reading it and gave it high rate

considering fluctuations in a quantised space

very good point!

I can't agree more

my essay may interest you Bit: from Breaking symmetry of it

Hope you enjoy it

Regards,

Xiong

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 10:38 GMT
Xiong

Thank you for supportive comments. I will read your essay and comment in your essay section.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Vladimir F. Tamari wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 09:12 GMT
Dear Carolyn. Hello, and apologies if this does not apply to you. I have read and rated your essay and about 50 others. If you have not read, or did not rate my essay The Cloud of Unknowing please consider doing so. With best wishes.

Vladimir

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


basudeba mishra wrote on Jul. 19, 2013 @ 12:08 GMT
Dear Madam,

Madam MARINA V VASILYEVA recommended your essay to us.

We have proved in many threads here and elsewhere without contradiction that the equivalence principle is a wrong description of reality and leads to Russell’s paradox of set theory. Till date no experiment has conclusively proved the equivalence of inertial mass with gravitational mass and all claims in this regard...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 08:40 GMT
Basudeba

It seems to me that you do not agree with my axioms. You assume that mass is a fundamental rather than space. My assumption is that mass is emergent from something more fundamental, which in my essay I am proposing is space and energy. You also seem to question the principles of General Relativity. My essay is based on the assumption that GR is a valid theory.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 03:42 GMT
Dear Carolyn

Just in case

I would like to show my short question about spacetime to Stephen Weinberg

Fri 8/1/2008 1:21 PM

Quoting Yuri Danoyan :

"Dear Dr Weinberg

If space is discrete and time is continue,does 4-dimensional space-time

lost its sense?

Sincerely

Yuri Danoyan"

from

weinberg@physics.utexas.edu

to Yuri Danoyan

"Yes"

Do you agree with SW?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

basudeba mishra replied on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 23:37 GMT
Dear Madam/Sir,

Both space and time are emergent properties born out of the perception of sequence. While space is the interval between the ordered sequences of objects that also is the background structure, time is the interval between the ordered sequences of events, i.e., changes in structures by energy.

Dimension of objects is the perception that differentiates the “internal structural space” from the “external relational space”. Since such perception is mediated by electromagnetic interaction, where an electric field and a magnetic field move perpendicular to each other in a direction perpendicular to both, we have three mutually perpendicular directions. Dimension is used to determine the state of objects: if fixed, then solid, if fluid, then liquid and if loosely held, then gas, if not related to each other, then plasma radiation. Since time does not fit this description, it is not a dimension.

Number is a property of substances by which we differentiate between similars: if there are no similars, it is one otherwise many. Many can be 2,3,...n depending upon the sequence of individual perceptions. Infinity is like one: without similars. But whereas the dimensions of one are fully perceptible, i.e., discrete, the dimensions of infinity are not fully perceptible: analog and not the same as any discrete number. Since mathematics is accumulation and reduction of similars and partly similars, it is limited to discrete numbers and not analog infinities. Yet, like two different quantities can coexist, two infinities can coexist. Hence space-time coexist and being infinite, coexist with everything else. Thus, everything happens in space-time and it cannot loose its sense. We have written this to weinberg@physics.utexas.edu.

Regards,

mbasudeba@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:05 GMT
Yuri

In my essay both space and time are discrete. However, if as you propose space is discrete and time is continuous then time is something different from space and therefore cannot be part of a 4d space-time concept. So I agree that 4D space-time would loose it's sense.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share


Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:14 GMT
Basudeba

If space and time emerge from a perception of sequence does this not require a perceiver? My view is that space is real and exists regardless of whether there is someone to perceive it. We use the concept of space to compare the position of objects and that is useful to us.

The concept of dimension can be seen in different ways. I think of dimension as a degree of freedom, and since time provides a degree of freedom it becomes a dimension.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 20, 2013 @ 22:52 GMT
I feel anxiety because of your silence - let email to me right immediately ,okay ?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Carolyn Devereux replied on Jul. 21, 2013 @ 07:36 GMT
Hoang cao Hai

Sorry for a late reply, which I have now posted for your original comments. Thank you for your interest in my esay.

Carolyn

Bookmark and Share



Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 08:02 GMT
Carolyn,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Yuri Danoyan wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 15:31 GMT
Carolyn

How about this construction?

http://vixra.org/abs/1208.0059

Yuri

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Jul. 22, 2013 @ 19:04 GMT
Carolyn,

No apology for was needed for "Much Ado..." I don't think even mine was original! It showed similar thinking.

Thanks for promising to read and rate mine. If you do please do comment on it too, I'll value your views (and score!). I also noticed I'd neglected to apply yours, so if you felt a pleasant shove from below that was me (apologies!)

Well done and very best wishes. I hope you stick around.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


john stephan selye wrote on Jul. 23, 2013 @ 19:38 GMT
Dear Carolyn -

I think your concept of a quantum BIT of fluctuating space-time probably provides a unit that will be of use to mathematicians.

The essay in general was a fine exposition of the essential nature of space-time and the emergence of particles. You begin with both space and energy, but I wonder if this doesn't 'wire in' certain assumptions about both (and later, about...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Sreenath B N wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 16:26 GMT
Carolyn,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


William Amos Carine wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 17:53 GMT
Carolyn,

The foamy quantum idea at the beginning of your paper that mentioned geometries making a bigger, less Euclidean picture arise, is an appropriate way to think of it as having right triangles line up like an upside-down stair case, or and other lined up succession, and introducing another triangle that opposes it? In other words, would a mismatch of of slope or incline produce behavior that on a larger macroscopic level looks like a curved surface? A ball in this sense would behave differently because the little incongruities would make the big picture behave like a fluctuating curve. This is just an attempt to get a feel for this sea of foam idea when considering geometries. I can't seem to pierce the idea intuitively.

Festering delightfully,

Amos.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Than Tin wrote on Jul. 24, 2013 @ 22:49 GMT
Dr. Devereux

Richard Feynman in his Nobel Acceptance Speech (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/19
65/feynman-lecture.html)

said: “It always seems odd to me that the fundamental laws of physics, when discovered, can appear in so many different forms that are not apparently identical at first, but with a little mathematical fiddling you can show the...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


M. V. Vasilyeva wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 03:26 GMT
Carolyn

my champion, you disappeared again :) I have a question.

Have you thought about the dimensions of space in your model? Admittedly, the number of dimensions is one of the most important characteristics of a space (I saw in a post above that you basically treat dimension as a degree of freedom). But what I mean are the properties of spaces of various dimensions, which mathematicians often overlook. Like, for example, take the number of Platonic solids or regular polytopes -- it turns out that 4D has the most (6), followed by 3D (5), and all the higher spaces have just 3 (and 2D has infinity, but it's not that interesting a space). But 4D, it turns out, is a particularly rich space. A 100 year old book 'geometry of four dimensions' (available online from Google books) made me appreciate the differences and inherent properties of 4D in comparison to 3D (and I read some on other spaces -- fascinating stuff). Each has its own characteristics that go far beyond the 'degrees of freedom'.

What I am alluding to is this: have you asked in the framework of your model, why do we observe 3D? It should answer this question.

Looking forward to your reappearance :)

-Marina

Bookmark and Share
post approved


Akinbo Ojo wrote on Jul. 25, 2013 @ 13:04 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

Sorry to disturb you again with my questions. I am not a professional physicist so seeking clarification from the experts: Is it being implied by the relational view of space and as suggested by Mach's principle that what decides whether a centrifugal force would act between two bodies in *constant relation*, would not be the bodies themselves, since they are at fixed distance to each other, nor the space in which they are located since it is a nothing, but by a distant sub-atomic particle light-years away in one of the fixed stars in whose reference frame the *constantly related* bodies are in circular motion?

You can reply me here or on my blog. And please pardon my naive view of physics and for asking what may not be the topic of your essay.

Accept my best regards,

Akinbo

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hoang cao Hai wrote on Jul. 26, 2013 @ 00:58 GMT
Hi - Carolyn

So glad to get your opinion, even though only half are approved.

It is true: everything is always related to each other, but the absolute nature of everything is completely not dependent on any observer position, evaluation perspective or the ability to perceive of anyone - it is my special discovery .

It would be more glad to me, if you take a moment to give me any example of the relative that you know.



Many thanks to you with best wishes.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Israel Perez wrote on Jul. 28, 2013 @ 06:10 GMT
Dear Carolyn

During a discussion about space, another contestant recommended me to read your essay. I'm glad that this happened, I think your work is interesting and insightful. But there are some issues that I would like to discuss with you and I'd be happy if you could give me your thoughts. In your essay you only give a vague idea of what you understand by space, you just define it as a...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 03:29 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

One single principle leads the Universe.

Every thing, every object, every phenomenon

is under the influence of this principle.

Nothing can exist if it is not born in the form of opposites.

I simply invite you to discover this in a few words,

but the main part is coming soon.

Thank you, and good luck!

I rated your essay accordingly to my appreciation.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Hugh Matlock wrote on Jul. 29, 2013 @ 09:33 GMT
Hi Carolyn,

Thank you, yours is a delightful essay that puts forward a specific model for thinking about the cosmos. I had some questions about it though. You wrote:

> Without energy there can be no matter and no Universe.

This would be a materialist assumption, rather than a realist assumption. In other words, there could be realistic theories that do not start with ...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 3, 2013 @ 04:40 GMT
Carolyn,

I found your your approach to the topic at hand fascinating and would like to rate your essay highly. However, before I do may I run some questions by you via email? Please let me know at: msm@physicsofdestiny.com

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


eAmazigh M. HANNOU wrote on Aug. 5, 2013 @ 23:33 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

We are at the end of this essay contest.

In conclusion, at the question to know if Information is more fundamental than Matter, there is a good reason to answer that Matter is made of an amazing mixture of eInfo and eEnergy, at the same time.

Matter is thus eInfo made with eEnergy rather than answer it is made with eEnergy and eInfo ; because eInfo is eEnergy, and the one does not go without the other one.

eEnergy and eInfo are the two basic Principles of the eUniverse. Nothing can exist if it is not eEnergy, and any object is eInfo, and therefore eEnergy.

And consequently our eReality is eInfo made with eEnergy. And the final verdict is : eReality is virtual, and virtuality is our fundamental eReality.

Good luck to the winners,

And see you soon, with good news on this topic, and the Theory of Everything.

Amazigh H.

I rated your essay.

Please visit My essay.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 07:39 GMT
Hi, votes are vanishing again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jacek Safuta wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 16:57 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

Fortunately within so many essays I have finally found also yours and J P Baugher’s and Torsten Maluga’s. Our essays are about geometrodynamics. I am happy that I am not alone with this idea.

Your claims:

“A BIT could be the starting point for a Universe to exist. A space-time BIT” or “photons and forces could be created from a quantum BIT of fluctuating space-time”

could be taken directly from my essay (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1609) and another publications!

Anyway I have proposed a spin experiment to prove (or falsify) that concept. As you are an academic entrant I hope you will be interested in carrying out the experiment falsifying also your concept? http://vixra.org/abs/1304.0027

I think you shall be interested also in the resonance transmissibility. The chart of transmissibility to frequency ratio is so similar to the black-body radiation graph…awesome! The coincidence?

Maybe you are interested in a cooperation/information exchange? I have some concepts about calculations necessary for the geometrization and I have found some predictions generated by the geometrization.

Obviously I can give you only the highest rating. This is important to promote that view that could possibly bring the desired unification in physics. However first of all we need the experimental proof.

Best regards,

Jacek

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Manuel S Morales wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:54 GMT
Carolyn,

Since it appears you have little time to respond to the postings on your essay, I felt compelled to go ahead and complete my review of your fine essay of which I have chosen to rate highly. I find your

realist view, "he BIT of information contained in the space- time quantum can exist regardless of an observer." is indeed in keeping with the findings of the recently completed 12 year experiment I have concluded.

I hope that you will find the time to review my brief essay (5 pgs. of text) before the competition is over later on this evening.

Best wishes,

Manuel

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Paul Borrill wrote on Aug. 7, 2013 @ 18:58 GMT
Dear Carolyn,

I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

You can find the latest version of my essay here:

http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-
V1.1a.pdf

(sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven’t figured out a way to not make it do that).

May the best essays win!

Kind regards,

Paul Borrill

paul at borrill dot com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.